Does being descended from earlier primates make you uncomfortable?

[Pete Harcoff]

One of the sticking points in the whole creationism/evolution debate is the simple idea that humans are descended from earlier primates and share a common ancestor with other primates. Many of the reactions I've noticed from creationists towards evolution seem predicated on this idea. In short, they don't like it.

Therefore, I'd like to ask, for creationists and evolutionists, does the idea of being descended from an earlier primate make you feel uncomfortable?

Note: For the purposes of this poll, creationist is defined as to include Young Earth creationists, Old Earth creationists, and any variant thereof. In short, if you believe in the special creation of humankind, you're a creationist.

Evolutionist includes anyone (Christian, atheist, whoever) who accepts the theory of evolution (in principal) including the evolution of the human species from earlier primates.

 

[coyoteBR]

Actually...
The whole proccess of formation of earth, the slow million of years of evolution, the way everything slowly matched on the several isolated fauna and flora systems and how they all get together to make this planet flow with life... The fact that everything slowly evolved for incontable eras...
That makes me admire God even more.

 

[Freodin]

I know that I am descended from a upper-rank Nazi figure in Berlin.

How should a descendence from early primates top make me ashamed?

 

[Matthew777]

Therefore, I'd like to ask, for creationists and evolutionists, does the idea of being descended from an earlier primate make you feel uncomfortable?

Given that the fossil evidence is unconvincing, I find the idea uncomfortable.
The Homo erectus skull and body size are within the range of modern human variation. Neandertal was merely a sub-species of Homo sapian.
Homo habilis is a grouping of unrelated fossil bones. Australopithecus is merely an extinct species of ape.

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

 

[Asimov]

Given that the fossil evidence is unconvincing, I find the idea uncomfortable.
The Homo erectus skull and body size are within the range of modern human variation. Neandertal was merely a sub-species of Homo sapian.
Homo habilis is a grouping of unrelated fossil bones. Australopithecus is merely an extinct species of ape.

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

he said, conveniently ignoring genetics.

 

[HRE]

And the numerous rebuttals...

 

[Matthew777]

he said, conveniently ignoring genetics.

Like how evolutionists ignore genetics to rule out design?

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

 

[Asimov]

Like how evolutionists ignore genetics to rule out design?

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

No. Where did I or anyone ever deny that the universe is designed, that life is designed?

 

[JohnR7]

Does being descended from earlier primates make you uncomfortable?

I think I maybe uncomfortable if I was decended from a frog or something like that. I don't think of myself as being the prince type.

 

[2Timothy2]

What's to be comfortable or uncomfortable about? We aren't descended from earlier primates.

 

[Matthew777]

Evolutionists should admit that the fossil evidence for human evolution, at least on its own, is unconvincing. Science education, especially in anthropology, should take note of this.

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

What's to be comfortable or uncomfortable about? We aren't descended from earlier primates.

But assuming we were, would you feel uncomfortable with the idea?

 

[Matthew777]

But assuming we were, would you feel uncomfortable with the idea?

If it were a fact, no. I'd probably hug a chimp.

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

 

[Bargainfluger]

What's to be comfortable or uncomfortable about? We aren't descended from earlier primates.

Well, would the thought concern you if you did believe we were? Maybe the question should have been worded differently...

 

[Freodin]

Evolutionists should admit that the fossil evidence for human evolution, at least on its own, is unconvincing. Science education, especially in anthropology, should take note of this.

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

As soon as every sermon starts with the acknowledgement that the story presented it it is unconvincing...

 

[Fear]

I love being nothing but a stupid monkey because I can do whatever I want and I'm not responsible for any of it. We're just a big stoopid monkeys, let's go steal some food and mate!

*pounds chest*

 

[Bargainfluger]

As soon as every sermon starts with the acknowledgement that the story presented it it is unconvincing...

 

[Matthew777]

As soon as every sermon starts with the acknowledgement that the story presented it it is unconvincing...

The historicity of the Gospels should be convincing.

 

[Freodin]

The historicity of the Gospels should be convincing.

The fossil evidence for human evolution should be convincing.

 

[Asimov]

The historicity of the Gospels should be convincing.

You mean the lack of historicity of the Gospels should be unconvincing? I slip up like that all the time, common mistake.